I also don't really watch a whole lot of rugby (partially due to access to it in the states), but there also appeared to be a lot more kicking going on, or is that still normal and I've just been watching mostly Sevens?

MugzyBrown:And you can see something greatly more athletic and exciting 10 times (at least) in every NFL season.

White guys running slowly... fascinating.

This was an amateur game in 1973. No play books here. Also, I doubt there has ever been an NFL play where the ball was in play for a minute and half and went through the hands of almost every player on the pitch.

...and the point is not whether anyone likes rugby or not but that a legend in the sport (29 caps for Wales, captain of a Lions tour and respected journalist) has died.

Who are the Barbarians because the is a nickname that needs to be used more often.

It's a by-invitation rugby club that gets a bunch of great players together and then plays against the best teams in the world purely for the love of the game -- South Africa, New Zealand, etc. It's kind of like an All Star team, except that they actually play world-class rugby and the games are competitive, not exhibitions.

The only membership criteria are that you be damn good on the field and not be a dick off it.

Not really. They're typically backup defensive backs, linebackers, or wide receivers &tight ends. Then there's the blockers for the punter.

And they're all much more athletic than your typical rugby squad.

Think about it. Take a country with a population of a couple large US states. Remove most of the really athletic people because they all play soccer, and you're left with the guys who are too slow-footed for soccer.

Plus it's just genetics; what percentage of world class 100/200m sprinters are white?

MugzyBrown:Moopy Mac: The specials teams players which (other than the returner) tend to be linemen/back up linemen, 6th string wide receivers and fullbacks? Yeah, sterling examples of top-flight athletic ability

Not really. They're typically backup defensive backs, linebackers, or wide receivers &tight ends. Then there's the blockers for the punter.

And they're all much more athletic than your typical rugby squad.

Think about it. Take a country with a population of a couple large US states. Remove most of the really athletic people because they all play soccer, and you're left with the guys who are too slow-footed for soccer.

Plus it's just genetics; what percentage of world class 100/200m sprinters are white?

I played american football all thru school and then went to college and played rugby.

God I love playing rugby more than playing american football, because american football is so scripted, but in rugby I could use my knowledge and field vision to see where the play was moving and either flip the script or kick the ball and run past the other wing and pick up my own kick for a try.

Brigandaca:MugzyBrown: And you can see something greatly more athletic and exciting 10 times (at least) in every NFL season.

White guys running slowly... fascinating.

This was an amateur game in 1973. No play books here. Also, I doubt there has ever been an NFL play where the ball was in play for a minute and half and went through the hands of almost every player on the pitch.

...and the point is not whether anyone likes rugby or not but that a legend in the sport (29 caps for Wales, captain of a Lions tour and respected journalist) has died.

My real issue with this is that the last run of the play was sheer luck. The guy who laterals was throwing it someone else when a teammate comes in takes it down the field. It's a fun play, to be sure, but no one knew wtf was going on.

I don't know if that try should still qualify as the "greatest of all time." The modern professional game, especially the styles played by southern hemisphere teams, is much more exciting than those old games in the 1970s. I think this game from New Zealand is a great candidate for the best three minutes of rugby in all time. It would be a great video to show off to those who are not familiar with rugby union.

INeedAName:My real issue with this is that the last run of the play was sheer luck. The guy who laterals was throwing it someone else when a teammate comes in takes it down the field. It's a fun play, to be sure, but no one knew wtf was going on.

no, it was conditioning. Before the end of that play, any NFL'er would be hunched over sucking wind asking when is the huddle?

PluckYew:INeedAName: My real issue with this is that the last run of the play was sheer luck. The guy who laterals was throwing it someone else when a teammate comes in takes it down the field. It's a fun play, to be sure, but no one knew wtf was going on.

no, it was conditioning. Before the end of that play, any NFL'er would be hunched over sucking wind asking when is the huddle?

PluckYew:INeedAName: My real issue with this is that the last run of the play was sheer luck. The guy who laterals was throwing it someone else when a teammate comes in takes it down the field. It's a fun play, to be sure, but no one knew wtf was going on.

no, it was conditioning. Before the end of that play, any NFL'er would be hunched over sucking wind asking when is the huddle?

Im going to assume you've never played a sport before. Id rather run a 2:00 800m than have to do 20 40m sprints.

Football is all 40m dashes over, and over, and over. Unless you're lucky enough to be an O or D lineman, then you get to spend every play trying to push 360 very angry pounds around the football field

I have no question that soccer and rugby players are fantastic athletes, but only an ignorant fan would think you're comparing the same sort of physical exertion.

ITT: People with minimal athletic ability and even less comprehension of an unfamiliar sport conclude that a sport they haven't played since they were sixteen is superior to the sport they've never ever played for reasons which can be easily debunked by a rudimentary understanding of how each sport works.

MugzyBrown:Moopy Mac: The specials teams players which (other than the returner) tend to be linemen/back up linemen, 6th string wide receivers and fullbacks? Yeah, sterling examples of top-flight athletic ability

Not really. They're typically backup defensive backs, linebackers, or wide receivers &tight ends. Then there's the blockers for the punter.

And they're all much more athletic than your typical rugby squad.

Let us all take a lesson from the above. NFL players are the greatest athletes on Earth. Period. No player in any other sport popular outside the U.S. of A. could possibly hope to be as athletic as an NFL player.

Think about it. Take a country with a population of a couple large US states. Remove most of the really athletic people because they all play soccer, and you're left with the guys who are too slow-footed for soccer. And another lesson: Rugby players are all just failed soccer players. And all the Rugby players in the world come from a population of a couple of large US states.

Plus it's just genetics; what percentage of world class 100/200m sprinters are white? And our third valuable lesson: All NFL players are black sprinters. Or, to put it another way, no Rugby players are black sprinters.

You actually posted these 'thoughts', for lack of a better term, as some sort of wisdom we could all share?

Slow? You've got to be kidding. They went almost the length of the field in 15 seconds, with a half-dozen laterals in there, two of the playmakers there being forwards. Yeah, Devin Hester can cover the same span in 11 seconds, but he's got guys blocking for him, and no fat linemen to have to share the running duties with.

Playing rugby isn't like running a fast 800m. It's exactly like doing an endless succession of sprints, except that in between sprints you've got to engage in impromptu greco-roman wrestling activities to try to keep the other team from getting the ball. Once that's done, you've got to go sprint again. And keep in mind, there's no endless substitutions. Sure, at the local club level you get guys playing at half-speed by the end of the game, but at the highest level they're still going all-out at the end.

And as for that last play being luck? You drill and practice for exactly that sort of pass to be taken at full speed. When you're coming in hard in support like that you'll even call out "left" or "right" so that the ball-carrier will know which way to pass without getting a good look.

NFL (USA) and Rugby (Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa - i'm gonna call these commonwealth nations even though that isn't correct) are broad reflections of the differences between the mentalities of those countries.

NFL is about specialization and precision. Whole different teams to perform different roles. People in different positions do one thing and one thing only. The breaks in play mean no second is wasted and each second is played at full pace. Only a few players on each team have the capacity to pull off a golden scoring play. The game is played at a level of precision that ensures that the better team on paper will usually win and luck is not so much of a factor.

Rugby is about versatility and attrition. Players must be able to defend and attack and be able to change roles in a millisecond. There are fewer stoppages and players must get to every breakdown to retain possession. Players have broadly defined roles, but are regularly called out to do things outside their normal position. Each player has the capacity to pull a scoring play out of nowhere. Grit and determination become factors late in the game when both teams are tiring and the game slows down.

You can see these differences in these countries' societies also. USA military stresses specialization, while the Commonwealth nations favour all-rounders. American businesses are biased towards vertical management structures, while the Commonwealth ones tend towards horizontal and non-hierarchical structures. NASCAR is about speed and nothing else, F1 sacrifices top speed for nuance.

I can see the appeal of NFL, but I can't get over the extreme specialisation and the stop-startiness of the the play (There is only 11 minutes of actual play in an average NFL game -source: 2010 WSJ article "11 Minutes of Action"). True, you don't see Olympic-quality sprinters or 350lb behemoths in Rugby, but those players would be incapable of running and wrestling for almost 40 minutes straight anyway. The games are different and require different physical traits.

INeedAName:PluckYew: INeedAName: My real issue with this is that the last run of the play was sheer luck. The guy who laterals was throwing it someone else when a teammate comes in takes it down the field. It's a fun play, to be sure, but no one knew wtf was going on.

no, it was conditioning. Before the end of that play, any NFL'er would be hunched over sucking wind asking when is the huddle?

Im going to assume you've never played a sport before. Id rather run a 2:00 800m than have to do 20 40m sprints.

Football is all 40m dashes over, and over, and over. Unless you're lucky enough to be an O or D lineman, then you get to spend every play trying to push 360 very angry pounds around the football field

I have no question that soccer and rugby players are fantastic athletes, but only an ignorant fan would think you're comparing the same sort of physical exertion.

I think the crux of your case is "only an ignorant fan would think you're comparing the same sort of physical exertion." Is that an admission on your part? Because I decided not to be an ignorant fan (well, I'm a player not a fan. But still no desire to be ignorant). According to what I can find, the average NFL game involves 11 minutes with the ball in play. I suspect this may be a little lower than it is in a rugby game. NFL players run about 1.25 miles per game. No, not on average, that is how far a wide receiver runs. (http://gizmodo.com/5992583/how-far-do-you-run-in-different-sports )

By contrast 2.8 miles is how far a rugby Prop runs (the fat slow players) while the scrum half will run 4.2 miles. Sure you might say, this doesn't quite contradict your idea that rugby is a slow run (even if more than an 800). But 19 miles an hour is not a bad speed and the backs are running about .4 of a mile at that speed (and some players are getting well above that speed) with about 1.6 miles at about 12 mph (http://www.rfu.com/takingpart/fitness/rugbydemands/distancesandspeed ru ns)

Rugby also fails to make a clear distinction between a lineman and a running back, so, when the play calls for it the prop has to break from the scrum and run support for the outside centre or the flanker has to get out from under the ruck and chase the ball to the wing. Or the winger has to keep his legs pumping in contact until the pack slams into his back and pushes the maul forward.

I am not using this to say that rugby is the better sport, nor that rugby players are better athletes. Those pissing competitions are pointless but I will conclude by saying that you seem like the ignorant fan, incapable of seeing past his own prejudice about his favourite sport and trying to understand a different sport by resorting to generic oversimplifications and misunderstood ideas. I know you were responding to a similar oversimplification "any NFL'er would be hunched over sucking wind asking when is the huddle? " And while that is a blatant exaggeration, you would have to admit that many (most?) NFL players are not conditioned to play a continuous flowing form of football. This is not a criticism, the game does not demand that of all its players. Whereas the game of rugby needs players to be in motion for most of the game, moving from a slow jog into a sprint as the play requires it (well, at the higher grades, the average lower grade prop is quite happy to walk to the next scrum and only join in a ruck if it appears in front of him).

/as an aside, I play with the son of Grant Batty (the NZ 11 in that game).//as another aside, there seems to be a lack of appreciation that this game took place in 1973///NFL & rugby have both changed since '73

harm dealer:NFL (USA) and Rugby (Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa - i'm gonna call these commonwealth nations even though that isn't correct) are broad reflections of the differences between the mentalities of those countries.

American football is essentially a game of possession. Rugby football is essentially a game of position.

Yeah, get back to us when your "great athletes" can play for 80 minutes. The average NFL game has 11 minutes of "action" over the course of three hours. Since there are offensive, defensive, and "special" teams, no one player plays more than 5 minutes in that time.

And the quarterback is the only guy on the entire 45 man team who has to have any kind of passing ability.

Newsflash, son: To the rest of the world your quaint little "Super Bowl" thingy is just that quite odd little event where Janet Jackson flashes her tits.

Personally I prefer League, even if I hate the team that managed this::